G.R. No.

208566 November 19, 2013 cast their famished bodies into the porcine feast to assuage their hunger with morsels coming from the generosity of their well-fed master.4 This practice was later compared to the actions of American legislators in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of their districts.5 While the advent ofGRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA JOSE M. VILLEGAS JR. JOSE L. GONZALEZ REUBEN M. ABANTE and QUINTIN refrigeration has made the actual pork barrel obsolete, it persists in reference to political bills thatPAREDES SAN DIEGO, Petitioners, "bring home the bacon" to a legislator‘s district and constituents.6 In a more technical sense, "Porkvs. Barrel" refers to an appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and securedHONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR. SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.7 Some scholars on the subject furtherFLORENCIO B. ABAD, NATIONAL TREASURER ROSALIA V. DE LEON SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by use it to refer to legislative control of local appropriations.8FRANKLIN M. DRILON m his capacity as SENATE PRESIDENT and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES represented byFELICIANO S. BELMONTE, JR. in his capacity as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, Respondents. In the Philippines, "Pork Barrel" has been commonly referred to as lump-sum, discretionary funds of Members of the Legislature,9 although, as will be later discussed, its usage would evolve in reference tox-----------------------x certain funds of the Executive.

G.R. No. 208493

A. Pre-Martial Law Era (1922-1972).vs.HONORABLE FRANKLIN M. DRILON in his capacity as SENATE PRESIDENT and HONORABLE FELICIANO S.BELMONTE, JR., in his capacity as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents. Act 3044,10 or the Public Works Act of 1922, is considered11 as the earliest form of "Congressional Pork Barrel" in the Philippines since the utilization of the funds appropriated therein were subjected to post-enactment legislator approval. Particularly, in the area of fundx-----------------------x release, Section 312 provides that the sums appropriated for certain public works projects13 "shall be distributed x x x subject to the approval of a joint committee elected by the SenateG.R. No. 209251 and the House of Representatives. "The committee from each House may also authorize one of its members to approve the distribution made by the Secretary of Commerce and Communications."14 Also, in the area of fund realignment, the same section provides thatPEDRITO M. NEPOMUCENO, Former Mayor-Boac, Marinduque Former Provincial Board Member -Province of the said secretary, "with the approval of said joint committee, or of the authorized membersMarinduque, Petitioner, thereof, may, for the purposes of said distribution, transfer unexpended portions of any itemvs. of appropriation under this Act to any other item hereunder."PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III* and SECRETARY FLORENCIO BUTCH ABAD, DEPARTMENT OFBUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents. In 1950, it has been documented15 that post-enactment legislator participation broadened from the areas of fund release and realignment to the area of project identification. DuringDECISION that year, the mechanics of the public works act was modified to the extent that the discretion of choosing projects was transferred from the Secretary of Commerce and CommunicationsPERLAS-BERNABE, J.: to legislators. "For the first time, the law carried a list of projects selected by Members of Congress, they ‘being the representatives of the people, either on their own account or by consultation with local officials or civil leaders.‘"16 During this period, the pork barrel"Experience is the oracle of truth."1 process commenced with local government councils, civil groups, and individuals appealing to Congressmen or Senators for projects. Petitions that were accommodated formed part of-James Madison a legislator‘s allocation, and the amount each legislator would eventually get is determined in a caucus convened by the majority. The amount was then integrated into the administration bill prepared by the Department of Public Works and Communications.Before the Court are consolidated petitions2 taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, all of which assail the Thereafter, the Senate and the House of Representatives added their own provisions to theconstitutionality of the Pork Barrel System. Due to the complexity of the subject matter, the Court shall heretofore bill until it was signed into law by the President – the Public Works Act.17 In the 1960‘s,discuss the system‘s conceptual underpinnings before detailing the particulars of the constitutional challenge. however, pork barrel legislation reportedly ceased in view of the stalemate between the House of Representatives and the Senate.18The Facts B. Martial Law Era (1972-1986).I. Pork Barrel: General Concept. While the previous" Congressional Pork Barrel" was apparently discontinued in 1972 after "Pork Barrel" is political parlance of American -English origin.3 Historically, its usage may be traced to Martial Law was declared, an era when "one man controlled the legislature,"19 the reprieve the degrading ritual of rolling out a barrel stuffed with pork to a multitude of black slaves who would was only temporary. By 1982, the Batasang Pambansa had already introduced a new item in

1 the General Appropriations Act (GAA) called the" Support for Local Development Projects" Under the 199734 CDF Article, Members of Congress and the Vice-President, in consultation (SLDP) under the article on "National Aid to Local Government Units". Based on reports,20 with the implementing agency concerned, were directed to submit to the DBM the list of 50% it was under the SLDP that the practice of giving lump-sum allocations to individual of projects to be funded from their respective CDF allocations which shall be duly endorsed legislators began, with each assemblyman receiving P500,000.00. Thereafter, assemblymen by (a) the Senate President and the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, in the case of the would communicate their project preferences to the Ministry of Budget and Management for Senate, and (b) the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the approval. Then, the said ministry would release the allocation papers to the Ministry of Local Committee on Appropriations, in the case of the House of Representatives; while the list for Governments, which would, in turn, issue the checks to the city or municipal treasurers in the remaining 50% was to be submitted within six (6) months thereafter. The same article the assemblyman‘s locality. It has been further reported that "Congressional Pork Barrel" also stated that the project list, which would be published by the DBM,35 "shall be the basis projects under the SLDP also began to cover not only public works projects, or so- called for the release of funds" and that "no funds appropriated herein shall be disbursed for "hard projects", but also "soft projects",21 or non-public works projects such as those which projects not included in the list herein required." would fall under the categories of, among others, education, health and livelihood.22 The following year, or in 1998,36 the foregoing provisions regarding the required lists andC. Post-Martial Law Era: endorsements were reproduced, except that the publication of the project list was no longer required as the list itself sufficed for the release of CDF Funds. Corazon Cojuangco Aquino Administration (1986-1992). The CDF was not, however, the lone form of "Congressional Pork Barrel" at that time. Other forms of "Congressional Pork Barrel" were reportedly fashioned and inserted into the GAA After the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986 and the restoration of Philippine (called "Congressional Insertions" or "CIs") in order to perpetuate the ad ministration‘s democracy, "Congressional Pork Barrel" was revived in the form of the "Mindanao political agenda.37 It has been articulated that since CIs "formed part and parcel of the Development Fund" and the "Visayas Development Fund" which were created with lump- budgets of executive departments, they were not easily identifiable and were thus harder to sum appropriations of P480 Million and P240 Million, respectively, for the funding of monitor." Nonetheless, the lawmakers themselves as well as the finance and budget officials development projects in the Mindanao and Visayas areas in 1989. It has been documented23 of the implementing agencies, as well as the DBM, purportedly knew about the insertions.38 that the clamor raised by the Senators and the Luzon legislators for a similar funding, Examples of these CIs are the Department of Education (DepEd) School Building Fund, the prompted the creation of the "Countrywide Development Fund" (CDF) which was integrated Congressional Initiative Allocations, the Public Works Fund, the El Niño Fund, and the into the 1990 GAA24 with an initial funding of P2.3 Billion to cover "small local infrastructure Poverty Alleviation Fund.39 The allocations for the School Building Fund, particularly, and other priority community projects." ―shall be made upon prior consultation with the representative of the legislative district concerned.”40 Similarly, the legislators had the power to direct how, where and when these Under the GAAs for the years 1991 and 1992,25 CDF funds were, with the approval of the appropriations were to be spent.41 President, to be released directly to the implementing agencies but "subject to the submission of the required list of projects and activities."Although the GAAs from 1990 to E. Joseph Ejercito Estrada (Estrada) Administration (1998-2001). 1992 were silent as to the amounts of allocations of the individual legislators, as well as their participation in the identification of projects, it has been reported26 that by 1992, Representatives were receiving P12.5 Million each in CDF funds, while Senators were In 1999,42 the CDF was removed in the GAA and replaced by three (3) separate forms of CIs, receiving P18 Million each, without any limitation or qualification, and that they could namely, the "Food Security Program Fund,"43 the "Lingap Para Sa Mahihirap Program identify any kind of project, from hard or infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, and Fund,"44 and the "Rural/Urban Development Infrastructure Program Fund,"45 all of which buildings to "soft projects" such as textbooks, medicines, and scholarships.27 contained a special provision requiring "prior consultation" with the Member s of Congress for the release of the funds.D. Fidel Valdez Ramos (Ramos) Administration (1992-1998). It was in the year 200046 that the "Priority Development Assistance Fund" (PDAF) appeared in the GAA. The requirement of "prior consultation with the respective Representative of the The following year, or in 1993,28 the GAA explicitly stated that the release of CDF funds was District" before PDAF funds were directly released to the implementing agency concerned to be made upon the submission of the list of projects and activities identified by, among was explicitly stated in the 2000 PDAF Article. Moreover, realignment of funds to any others, individual legislators. For the first time, the 1993 CDF Article included an allocation expense category was expressly allowed, with the sole condition that no amount shall be for the Vice-President.29 As such, Representatives were allocated P12.5 Million each in CDF used to fund personal services and other personnel benefits.47 The succeeding PDAF funds, Senators, P18 Million each, and the Vice-President, P20 Million. provisions remained the same in view of the re-enactment48 of the 2000 GAA for the year 2001. In 1994,30 1995,31 and 1996,32 the GAAs contained the same provisions on project identification and fund release as found in the 1993 CDF Article. In addition, however, the F. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Arroyo) Administration (2001-2010). Department of Budget and Management (DBM) was directed to submit reports to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Appropriations on the releases made from the funds.33 The 200249 PDAF Article was brief and straightforward as it merely contained a single special provision ordering the release of the funds directly to the implementing agency or local government unit concerned, without further qualifications. The following year, 2003,50

2 the same single provision was present, with simply an expansion of purpose and express infrastructure projects; (b) allotment released has not yet been obligated for the original authority to realign. Nevertheless, the provisions in the 2003 budgets of the Department of scope of work, and (c) the request for realignment is with the concurrence of the legislator Public Works and Highways51 (DPWH) and the DepEd52 required prior consultation with concerned.71 Members of Congress on the aspects of implementation delegation and project list submission, respectively. In 2004, the 2003 GAA was re-enacted.53 In the 201272 and 201373 PDAF Articles, it is stated that the "identification of projects and/or designation of beneficiaries shall conform to the priority list, standard or design In 2005,54 the PDAF Article provided that the PDAF shall be used "to fund priority programs prepared by each implementing agency (priority list requirement) x x x." However, as and projects under the ten point agenda of the national government and shall be released practiced, it would still be the individual legislator who would choose and identify the project directly to the implementing agencies." It also introduced the program menu concept,55 from the said priority list.74 which is essentially a list of general programs and implementing agencies from which a particular PDAF project may be subsequently chosen by the identifying authority. The 2005 Provisions on legislator allocations75 as well as fund realignment76 were included in the GAA was re-enacted56 in 2006 and hence, operated on the same bases. In similar regard, the 2012 and 2013 PDAF Articles; but the allocation for the Vice-President, which was pegged at program menu concept was consistently integrated into the 2007,57 2008,58 2009,59 and P200 Million in the 2011 GAA, had been deleted. In addition, the 2013 PDAF Article now 201060 GAAs. allowed LGUs to be identified as implementing agencies if they have the technical capability to implement the projects.77 Legislators were also allowed to identify programs/projects, Textually, the PDAF Articles from 2002 to 2010 were silent with respect to the specific except for assistance to indigent patients and scholarships, outside of his legislative district amounts allocated for the individual legislators, as well as their participation in the proposal provided that he secures the written concurrence of the legislator of the intended outside- and identification of PDAF projects to be funded. In contrast to the PDAF Articles, however, district, endorsed by the Speaker of the House.78 Finally, any realignment of PDAF funds, the provisions under the DepEd School Building Program and the DPWH budget, similar to modification and revision of project identification, as well as requests for release of funds, its predecessors, explicitly required prior consultation with the concerned Member of were all required to be favorably endorsed by the House Committee on Appropriations and Congress61 anent certain aspects of project implementation. the Senate Committee on Finance, as the case may be.79

Significantly, it was during this era that provisions which allowed formal participation of III. History of Presidential Pork Barrel in the Philippines. non-governmental organizations (NGO) in the implementation of government projects were introduced. In the Supplemental Budget for 2006, with respect to the appropriation for While the term "Pork Barrel" has been typically associated with lump-sum, discretionary funds of school buildings, NGOs were, by law, encouraged to participate. For such purpose, the law Members of Congress, the present cases and the recent controversies on the matter have, however, stated that "the amount of at least P250 Million of the P500 Million allotted for the shown that the term‘s usage has expanded to include certain funds of the President such as the construction and completion of school buildings shall be made available to NGOs including Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund. the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Inc. for its "Operation Barrio School" program, with capability and proven track records in the construction of public school buildings x x x."62 The same allocation was made available to On the one hand, the Malampaya Funds was created as a special fund under Section 880 of Presidential NGOs in the 2007 and 2009 GAAs under the DepEd Budget.63 Also, it was in 2007 that the Decree No. (PD) 910,81 issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos) on March 22, 1976. In Government Procurement Policy Board64 (GPPB) issued Resolution No. 12-2007 dated June enacting the said law, Marcos recognized the need to set up a special fund to help intensify, strengthen, 29, 2007 (GPPB Resolution 12-2007), amending the implementing rules and regulations65 and consolidate government efforts relating to the exploration, exploitation, and development of of RA 9184,66 the Government Procurement Reform Act, to include, as a form of negotiated indigenous energy resources vital to economic growth.82 Due to the energy-related activities of the procurement,67 the procedure whereby the Procuring Entity68 (the implementing agency) government in the Malampaya natural gas field in Palawan, or the "Malampaya Deep Water Gas-to- may enter into a memorandum of agreement with an NGO, provided that "an appropriation Power Project",83 the special fund created under PD 910 has been currently labeled as Malampaya law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted out to NGOs."69 Funds.

G. Present Administration (2010-Present). On the other hand the Presidential Social Fund was created under Section 12, Title IV84 of PD 1869,85 or the Charter of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). PD 1869 was similarly issued by Marcos on July 11, 1983. More than two (2) years after, he amended PD 1869 and accordingly Differing from previous PDAF Articles but similar to the CDF Articles, the 201170 PDAF issued PD 1993 on October 31, 1985,86 amending Section 1287 of the former law. As it stands, the Article included an express statement on lump-sum amounts allocated for individual Presidential Social Fund has been described as a special funding facility managed and administered by legislators and the Vice-President: Representatives were given P70 Million each, broken the Presidential Management Staff through which the President provides direct assistance to priority down into P40 Million for "hard projects" and P30 Million for "soft projects"; while P200 programs and projects not funded under the regular budget. It is sourced from the share of the Million was given to each Senator as well as the Vice-President, with a P100 Million allocation government in the aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR.88 each for "hard" and "soft projects." Likewise, a provision on realignment of funds was included, but with the qualification that it may be allowed only once. The same provision also allowed the Secretaries of Education, Health, Social Welfare and Development, Interior and IV. Controversies in the Philippines. Local Government, Environment and Natural Resources, Energy, and Public Works and Highways to realign PDAF Funds, with the further conditions that: (a) realignment is within the same implementing unit and same project category as the original project, for 3Over the decades, "pork" funds in the Philippines have increased tremendously,89 owing in no small ● Total VILP releases for the period exceeded the total amount appropriated under the 2007part to previous Presidents who reportedly used the "Pork Barrel" in order to gain congressional to 2009 GAAs.support.90 It was in 1996 when the first controversy surrounding the "Pork Barrel" erupted. FormerMarikina City Representative Romeo Candazo (Candazo), then an anonymous source, "blew the lid on ● Infrastructure projects were constructed on private lots without these having been turnedthe huge sums of government money that regularly went into the pockets of legislators in the form of over to the government.kickbacks."91 He said that "the kickbacks were ‘SOP‘ (standard operating procedure) among legislatorsand ranged from a low 19 percent to a high 52 percent of the cost of each project, which could beanything from dredging, rip rapping, sphalting, concreting, and construction of school buildings."92 ● Significant amounts were released to implementing agencies without the latter‘s"Other sources of kickbacks that Candazo identified were public funds intended for medicines and endorsement and without considering their mandated functions, administrative andtextbooks. A few days later, the tale of the money trail became the banner story of the Philippine Daily technical capabilities to implement projects.Inquirer issue of August 13, 1996, accompanied by an illustration of a roasted pig."93 "The publicationof the stories, including those about congressional initiative allocations of certain lawmakers, including ● Implementation of most livelihood projects was not undertaken by the implementingP3.6 Billion for a Congressman, sparked public outrage."94 agencies themselves but by NGOs endorsed by the proponent legislators to which the Funds were transferred.Thereafter, or in 2004, several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF as enacted in the2004 GAA for being unconstitutional. Unfortunately, for lack of "any pertinent evidentiary support that ● The funds were transferred to the NGOs in spite of the absence of any appropriation law orillegal misuse of PDAF in the form of kickbacks has become a common exercise of unscrupulous ordinance.Members of Congress," the petition was dismissed.95

● Selection of the NGOs were not compliant with law and regulations.Recently, or in July of the present year, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) began its probe intoallegations that "the government has been defrauded of some P10 Billion over the past 10 years by asyndicate using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and various government agencies for scores ● Eighty-Two (82) NGOs entrusted with implementation of seven hundred seventy twoof ghost projects."96 The investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers who (772) projects amount to P6.156 Billion were either found questionable, or submitteddeclared that JLN Corporation – "JLN" standing for Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) – had swindled billions questionable/spurious documents, or failed to liquidate in whole or in part their utilizationof pesos from the public coffers for "ghost projects" using no fewer than 20 dummy NGOs for an entire of the Funds.decade. While the NGOs were supposedly the ultimate recipients of PDAF funds, the whistle-blowersdeclared that the money was diverted into Napoles‘ private accounts.97 Thus, after its investigation on ● Procurement by the NGOs, as well as some implementing agencies, of goods and servicesthe Napoles controversy, criminal complaints were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, charging reportedly used in the projects were not compliant with law.five (5) lawmakers for Plunder, and three (3) other lawmakers for Malversation, Direct Bribery, andViolation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Also recommended to be charged in thecomplaints are some of the lawmakers‘ chiefs -of-staff or representatives, the heads and other officials As for the "Presidential Pork Barrel", whistle-blowers alleged that" at least P900 Million from royaltiesof three (3) implementing agencies, and the several presidents of the NGOs set up by Napoles.98 in the operation of the Malampaya gas project off Palawan province intended for agrarian reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy NGO."104 According to incumbent CoA Chairperson Maria Gracia Pulido Tan (CoA Chairperson), the CoA is, as of this writing, in the process of preparing "oneOn August 16, 2013, the Commission on Audit (CoA) released the results of a three-year audit consolidated report" on the Malampaya Funds.105investigation99 covering the use of legislators' PDAF from 2007 to 2009, or during the last three (3)years of the Arroyo administration. The purpose of the audit was to determine the propriety of releasesof funds under PDAF and the Various Infrastructures including Local Projects (VILP)100 by the DBM, V. The Procedural Antecedents.the application of these funds and the implementation of projects by the appropriate implementingagencies and several government-owned-and-controlled corporations (GOCCs).101 The total releases Spurred in large part by the findings contained in the CoA Report and the Napoles controversy, severalcovered by the audit amounted to P8.374 Billion in PDAF and P32.664 Billion in VILP, representing 58% petitions were lodged before the Court similarly seeking that the "Pork Barrel System" be declaredand 32%, respectively, of the total PDAF and VILP releases that were found to have been made unconstitutional. To recount, the relevant procedural antecedents in these cases are as follows:nationwide during the audit period.102 Accordingly, the Co A‘s findings contained in its Report No.2012-03 (CoA Report), entitled "Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and VariousInfrastructures including Local Projects (VILP)," were made public, the highlights of which are as On August 28, 2013, petitioner Samson S. Alcantara (Alcantara), President of the Social Justice Society, filed afollows:103 Petition for Prohibition of even date under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Alcantara Petition), seeking that the "Pork Barrel System" be declared unconstitutional, and a writ of prohibition be issued permanently restraining respondents Franklin M. Drilon and Feliciano S. Belmonte, Jr., in their respective capacities as the incumbent ● Amounts released for projects identified by a considerable number of legislators Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives, from further taking any steps to enact legislation significantly exceeded their respective allocations. appropriating funds for the "Pork Barrel System," in whatever form and by whatever name it may be called, and from approving further releases pursuant thereto.106 The Alcantara Petition was docketed as G.R. No. 208493. ● Amounts were released for projects outside of legislative districts of sponsoring members of the Lower House.

4On September 3, 2013, petitioners Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica, Jose L. Gonzalez, Reuben M. Abante, Quintin On October 1, 2013, the Court issued an Advisory providing for the guidelines to be observed by the parties forParedes San Diego (Belgica, et al.), and Jose M. Villegas, Jr. (Villegas) filed an Urgent Petition For Certiorari and the Oral Arguments scheduled on October 8, 2013. In view of the technicality of the issues material to the presentProhibition With Prayer For The Immediate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of cases, incumbent Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza (Solicitor General) was directed to bring with him duringPreliminary Injunction dated August 27, 2013 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Belgica Petition), seeking that the Oral Arguments representative/s from the DBM and Congress who would be able to competently andthe annual "Pork Barrel System," presently embodied in the provisions of the GAA of 2013 which provided for the completely answer questions related to, among others, the budgeting process and its implementation. Further, the2013 PDAF, and the Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary funds, such as the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential CoA Chairperson was appointed as amicus curiae and thereby requested to appear before the Court during theSocial Fund,107 be declared unconstitutional and null and void for being acts constituting grave abuse of Oral Arguments.discretion. Also, they pray that the Court issue a TRO against respondents Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Florencio B. Abad(Secretary Abad) and Rosalia V. De Leon, in their respective capacities as the incumbent Executive Secretary, On October 8 and 10, 2013, the Oral Arguments were conducted. Thereafter, the Court directed the parties toSecretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and National Treasurer, or their agents, for them submit their respective memoranda within a period of seven (7) days, or until October 17, 2013, which the partiesto immediately cease any expenditure under the aforesaid funds. Further, they pray that the Court order the subsequently did.foregoing respondents to release to the CoA and to the public: (a) "the complete schedule/list of legislators whohave availed of their PDAF and VILP from the years 2003 to 2013, specifying the use of the funds, the project oractivity and the recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto"; and (b) "the use of the Executive‘s The Issues Before the Courtlump-sum, discretionary funds, including the proceeds from the x x x Malampaya Funds and remittances from thePAGCOR x x x from 2003 to 2013, specifying the x x x project or activity and the recipient entities or individuals, Based on the pleadings, and as refined during the Oral Arguments, the following are the main issues for the Court‘sand all pertinent data thereto."108 Also, they pray for the "inclusion in budgetary deliberations with the Congress resolution:of all presently off-budget, lump-sum, discretionary funds including, but not limited to, proceeds from theMalampaya Funds and remittances from the PAGCOR."109 The Belgica Petition was docketed as G.R. No.208566.110 I. Procedural Issues.

Lastly, on September 5, 2013, petitioner Pedrito M. Nepomuceno (Nepomuceno), filed a Petition dated August 23, Whether or not (a) the issues raised in the consolidated petitions involve an actual and justiciable controversy;2012 (Nepomuceno Petition), seeking that the PDAF be declared unconstitutional, and a cease and desist order be (b) the issues raised in the consolidated petitions are matters of policy not subject to judicial review; (c)issued restraining President Benigno Simeon S. Aquino III (President Aquino) and Secretary Abad from releasing petitioners have legal standing to sue; and (d) the Court‘s Decision dated August 19, 1994 in G.R. Nos. 113105,such funds to Members of Congress and, instead, allow their release to fund priority projects identified and 113174, 113766, and 113888, entitled "Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez"114 (Philconsa) andapproved by the Local Development Councils in consultation with the executive departments, such as the DPWH, Decision dated April 24, 2012 in G.R. No. 164987, entitled "Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty v. Secretary ofthe Department of Tourism, the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation, and Communication Budget and Management"115 (LAMP) bar the re-litigatio n of the issue of constitutionality of the "Pork Barreland the National Economic Development Authority.111 The Nepomuceno Petition was docketed as UDK- System" under the principles of res judicata and stare decisis.14951.112 II. Substantive Issues on the "Congressional Pork Barrel."On September 10, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution of even date (a) consolidating all cases; (b) requiring publicrespondents to comment on the consolidated petitions; (c) issuing a TRO (September 10, 2013 TRO) enjoining the Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar thereto areDBM, National Treasurer, the Executive Secretary, or any of the persons acting under their authority from unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles of/constitutional provisions on (a) separation ofreleasing (1) the remaining PDAF allocated to Members of Congress under the GAA of 2013, and (2) Malampaya powers; (b) non-delegability of legislative power; (c) checks and balances; (d) accountability; (e) politicalFunds under the phrase "for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" pursuant to dynasties; and (f) local autonomy.Section 8 of PD 910 but not for the purpose of "financing energy resource development and exploitation programsand projects of the government‖ under the same provision; and (d) setting the consolidated cases for OralArguments on October 8, 2013. III. Substantive Issues on the "Presidential Pork Barrel."

On September 23, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Consolidated Comment (Comment) of even Whether or not the phrases (a) "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" underdate before the Court, seeking the lifting, or in the alternative, the partial lifting with respect to educational and Section 8 of PD 910,116 relating to the Malampaya Funds, and (b) "to finance the priority infrastructuremedical assistance purposes, of the Court‘s September 10, 2013 TRO, and that the consolidated petitions be development projects and to finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as maydismissed for lack of merit.113 be directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines" under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, relating to the Presidential Social Fund, are unconstitutional insofar as they constitute undue delegations of legislative power.On September 24, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution of even date directing petitioners to reply to the Comment.

These main issues shall be resolved in the order that they have been stated. In addition, the Court shall also tacklePetitioners, with the exception of Nepomuceno, filed their respective replies to the Comment: (a) on September certain ancillary issues as prompted by the present cases.30, 2013, Villegas filed a separate Reply dated September 27, 2013 (Villegas Reply); (b) on October 1, 2013,Belgica, et al. filed a Reply dated September 30, 2013 (Belgica Reply); and (c) on October 2, 2013, Alcantara fileda Reply dated October 1, 2013. The Court’s Ruling

5The petitions are partly granted. Justice Carpio: The President has taken an oath to faithfully execute the law,127 correct? Solicitor General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor.I. Procedural Issues. Justice Carpio: And so the President cannot refuse to implement the General Appropriations Act, correct?The prevailing rule in constitutional litigation is that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a lawor governmental act may be heard and decided by the Court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites Solicitor General Jardeleza: Well, that is our answer, Your Honor. In the case, for example of the PDAF, thefor judicial inquiry,117 namely: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial President has a duty to execute the laws but in the face of the outrage over PDAF, the President was saying, "I ampower; (b) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or not sure that I will continue the release of the soft projects," and that started, Your Honor. Now, whether or notissuance; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity ; and (d) the issue of that … (interrupted)constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.118 Of these requisites, case law states that the first two arethe most important119 and, therefore, shall be discussed forthwith. Justice Carpio: Yeah. I will grant the President if there are anomalies in the project, he has the power to stop the releases in the meantime, to investigate, and that is Section 38 of Chapter 5 of Book 6 of the Revised AdministrativeA. Existence of an Actual Case or Controversy. Code128 x x x. So at most the President can suspend, now if the President believes that the PDAF is unconstitutional, can he just refuse to implement it?By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or controversy.120 This isembodied in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which pertinently states that "judicial power includes Solicitor General Jardeleza: No, Your Honor, as we were trying to say in the specific case of the PDAF because ofthe duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and the CoA Report, because of the reported irregularities and this Court can take judicial notice, even outside, outsideenforceable x x x." Jurisprudence provides that an actual case or controversy is one which "involves a conflict of of the COA Report, you have the report of the whistle-blowers, the President was just exercising precisely the dutylegal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a ….hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.121 In other words, "there must be a contrariety of legal rights thatcan be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence."122 Related to the requirement xxxxof an actual case or controversy is the requirement of "ripeness," meaning that the questions raised forconstitutional scrutiny are already ripe for adjudication. "A question is ripe for adjudication when the act beingchallenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. It is a prerequisite that something had Justice Carpio: Yes, and that is correct. You‘ve seen the CoA Report, there are anomalies, you stop and investigate,then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the and prosecute, he has done that. But, does that mean that PDAF has been repealed?petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the challengedaction."123 "Withal, courts will decline to pass upon constitutional issues through advisory opinions, bereft as Solicitor General Jardeleza: No, Your Honor x x x.they are of authority to resolve hypothetical or moot questions."124

xxxxBased on these principles, the Court finds that there exists an actual and justiciable controversy in these cases.

Justice Carpio: So that PDAF can be legally abolished only in two (2) cases. Congress passes a law to repeal it, orThe requirement of contrariety of legal rights is clearly satisfied by the antagonistic positions of the parties on the this Court declares it unconstitutional, correct?constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System." Also, the questions in these consolidated cases are ripe foradjudication since the challenged funds and the provisions allowing for their utilization – such as the 2013 GAAfor the PDAF, PD 910 for the Malampaya Funds and PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, for the Presidential Social Solictor General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor.Fund – are currently existing and operational; hence, there exists an immediate or threatened injury to petitionersas a result of the unconstitutional use of these public funds. Justice Carpio: The President has no power to legally abolish PDAF. (Emphases supplied)

As for the PDAF, the Court must dispel the notion that the issues related thereto had been rendered moot and Even on the assumption of mootness, jurisprudence, nevertheless, dictates that "the moot and academic‘ principleacademic by the reforms undertaken by respondents. A case becomes moot when there is no more actual is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the Court in resolving a case." The Court will decide cases,controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.125 Differing from otherwise moot, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of thethis description, the Court observes that respondents‘ proposed line-item budgeting scheme would not terminate situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requiresthe controversy nor diminish the useful purpose for its resolution since said reform is geared towards the 2014 formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable ofbudget, and not the 2013 PDAF Article which, being a distinct subject matter, remains legally effective and existing. repetition yet evading review.129Neither will the President‘s declaration that he had already "abolished the PDAF" render the issues on PDAF mootprecisely because the Executive branch of government has no constitutional authority to nullify or annul its legalexistence. By constitutional design, the annulment or nullification of a law may be done either by Congress, The applicability of the first exception is clear from the fundamental posture of petitioners – they essentially allegethrough the passage of a repealing law, or by the Court, through a declaration of unconstitutionality. Instructive grave violations of the Constitution with respect to, inter alia, the principles of separation of powers, non-on this point is the following exchange between Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Justice Carpio) and the delegability of legislative power, checks and balances, accountability and local autonomy.Solicitor General during the Oral Arguments:126

6The applicability of the second exception is also apparent from the nature of the interests involved The "limitation on the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies‖ carries the assurance that "the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government."138 Essentially, the foregoing limitation is a restatement of the political question doctrine which, under the classic formulation of Baker v.– the constitutionality of the very system within which significant amounts of public funds have been and continue Carr,139 applies when there is found, among others, "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of theto be utilized and expended undoubtedly presents a situation of exceptional character as well as a matter of issue to a coordinate political department," "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards forparamount public interest. The present petitions, in fact, have been lodged at a time when the system‘s flaws have resolving it" or "the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-never before been magnified. To the Court‘s mind, the coalescence of the CoA Report, the accounts of numerous judicial discretion." Cast against this light, respondents submit that the "the political branches are in the bestwhistle-blowers, and the government‘s own recognition that reforms are needed "to address the reported abuses position not only to perform budget-related reforms but also to do them in response to the specific demands ofof the PDAF"130 demonstrates a prima facie pattern of abuse which only underscores the importance of the their constituents" and, as such, "urge the Court not to impose a solution at this stage."140matter. It is also by this finding that the Court finds petitioners‘ claims as not merely theorized, speculative orhypothetical. Of note is the weight accorded by the Court to the findings made by the CoA which is theconstitutionally-mandated audit arm of the government. In Delos Santos v. CoA,131 a recent case wherein the The Court must deny respondents‘ submission.Court upheld the CoA‘s disallowance of irregularly disbursed PDAF funds, it was emphasized that: Suffice it to state that the issues raised before the Court do not present political but legal questions which areThe COA is endowed with enough latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, within its province to resolve. A political question refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are toextravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. It is tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has beensafeguarding the proper use of the government's, and ultimately the people's, property. The exercise of its general delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues dependent uponaudit power is among the constitutional mechanisms that gives life to the check and balance system inherent in the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure."141 The intrinsic constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System"our form of government. is not an issue dependent upon the wisdom of the political branches of government but rather a legal one which the Constitution itself has commanded the Court to act upon. Scrutinizing the contours of the system along constitutional lines is a task that the political branches of government are incapable of rendering precisely becauseIt is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is it is an exercise of judicial power. More importantly, the present Constitution has not only vested the Judiciary theconstitutionally-created, such as the CoA, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for right to exercise judicial power but essentially makes it a duty to proceed therewith. Section 1, Article VIII of thetheir presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. Findings of administrative agencies are 1987 Constitution cannot be any clearer: "The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in suchaccorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or lower courts as may be established by law. It includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversiesarbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. It is only when the CoA has acted without or in involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been aexcess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, that this Court grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentalityentertains a petition questioning its rulings. x x x. (Emphases supplied) of the Government." In Estrada v. Desierto,142 the expanded concept of judicial power under the 1987 Constitution and its effect on the political question doctrine was explained as follows:143Thus, if only for the purpose of validating the existence of an actual and justiciable controversy in these cases, theCourt deems the findings under the CoA Report to be sufficient. To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights whichThe Court also finds the third exception to be applicable largely due to the practical need for a definitive ruling on are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse ofthe system‘s constitutionality. As disclosed during the Oral Arguments, the CoA Chairperson estimates that discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government.thousands of notices of disallowances will be issued by her office in connection with the findings made in the CoA Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the "thou shalt not's" of the Constitution directed against the exercise ofReport. In this relation, Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) pointed out that all of its jurisdiction. With the new provision, however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it canthese would eventually find their way to the courts.132 Accordingly, there is a compelling need to formulate do to prevent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch orcontrolling principles relative to the issues raised herein in order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, not instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing. x xjust for the expeditious resolution of the anticipated disallowance cases, but more importantly, so that the x (Emphases supplied)government may be guided on how public funds should be utilized in accordance with constitutional principles. It must also be borne in mind that ― when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it doesFinally, the application of the fourth exception is called for by the recognition that the preparation and passage of not assert any superiority over the other departments; does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of thethe national budget is, by constitutional imprimatur, an affair of annual occurrence.133 The relevance of the issues legislature or the executive, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by thebefore the Court does not cease with the passage of a "PDAF -free budget for 2014."134 The evolution of the "Pork Constitution."144 To a great extent, the Court is laudably cognizant of the reforms undertaken by its co-equalBarrel System," by its multifarious iterations throughout the course of history, lends a semblance of truth to branches of government. But it is by constitutional force that the Court must faithfully perform its duty. Ultimately,petitioners‘ claim that "the same dog will just resurface wearing a different collar."135 In Sanlakas v. Executive it is the Court‘s avowed intention that a resolution of these cases would not arrest or in any manner impede theSecretary,136 the government had already backtracked on a previous course of action yet the Court used the endeavors of the two other branches but, in fact, help ensure that the pillars of change are erected on firm"capable of repetition but evading review" exception in order "to prevent similar questions from re- constitutional grounds. After all, it is in the best interest of the people that each great branch of government, withinemerging."137 The situation similarly holds true to these cases. Indeed, the myriad of issues underlying the its own sphere, contributes its share towards achieving a holistic and genuine solution to the problems of society.manner in which certain public funds are spent, if not resolved at this most opportune time, are capable of For all these reasons, the Court cannot heed respondents‘ plea for judicial restraint.repetition and hence, must not evade judicial review. C. Locus Standi.B. Matters of Policy: the Political Question Doctrine.

7"The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competentcontroversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to re-litigate the same issue.153court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Unless a person is injuriously affected in anyof his constitutional rights by the operation of statute or ordinance, he has no standing."145 Philconsa was the first case where a constitutional challenge against a Pork Barrel provision, i.e., the 1994 CDF Article, was resolved by the Court. To properly understand its context, petitioners‘ posturing was that "the powerPetitioners have come before the Court in their respective capacities as citizen-taxpayers and accordingly, assert given to the Members of Congress to propose and identify projects and activities to be funded by the CDF is anthat they "dutifully contribute to the coffers of the National Treasury."146 Clearly, as taxpayers, they possess the encroachment by the legislature on executive power, since said power in an appropriation act is in implementationrequisite standing to question the validity of the existing "Pork Barrel System" under which the taxes they pay of the law" and that "the proposal and identification of the projects do not involve the making of laws or the repealhave been and continue to be utilized. It is undeniable that petitioners, as taxpayers, are bound to suffer from the and amendment thereof, the only function given to the Congress by the Constitution."154 In deference to theunconstitutional usage of public funds, if the Court so rules. Invariably, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where foregoing submissions, the Court reached the following main conclusions: one, under the Constitution, the powerthere is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper of appropriation, or the "power of the purse," belongs to Congress; two, the power of appropriation carries with itpurpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law,147 as in the power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law and it can be detailed and asthese cases. broad as Congress wants it to be; and, three, the proposals and identifications made by Members of Congress are merely recommendatory. At once, it is apparent that the Philconsa resolution was a limited response to a separation of powers problem, specifically on the propriety of conferring post-enactment identification authorityMoreover, as citizens, petitioners have equally fulfilled the standing requirement given that the issues they have to Members of Congress. On the contrary, the present cases call for a more holistic examination of (a) the inter-raised may be classified as matters "of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of relation between the CDF and PDAF Articles with each other, formative as they are of the entire "Pork Barrelparamount public interest."148 The CoA Chairperson‘s statement during the Oral Arguments that the present System" as well as (b) the intra-relation of post-enactment measures contained within a particular CDF or PDAFcontroversy involves "not merely a systems failure" but a "complete breakdown of controls"149 amplifies, in Article, including not only those related to the area of project identification but also to the areas of fund releaseaddition to the matters above-discussed, the seriousness of the issues involved herein. Indeed, of greater import and realignment. The complexity of the issues and the broader legal analyses herein warranted may be, therefore,than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the considered as a powerful countervailing reason against a wholesale application of the stare decisis principle.fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.150 All told, petitioners have sufficient locus standi tofile the instant cases. In addition, the Court observes that the Philconsa ruling was actually riddled with inherent constitutional inconsistencies which similarly countervail against a full resort to stare decisis. As may be deduced from the mainD. Res Judicata and Stare Decisis. conclusions of the case, Philconsa‘s fundamental premise in allowing Members of Congress to propose and identify of projects would be that the said identification authority is but an aspect of the power of appropriation which hasRes judicata (which means a "matter adjudged") and stare decisis non quieta et movere (or simply, stare decisis been constitutionally lodged in Congress. From this premise, the contradictions may be easily seen. If the authoritywhich means "follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled") are general procedural law to identify projects is an aspect of appropriation and the power of appropriation is a form of legislative powerprinciples which both deal with the effects of previous but factually similar dispositions to subsequent cases. For thereby lodged in Congress, then it follows that: (a) it is Congress which should exercise such authority, and notthe cases at bar, the Court examines the applicability of these principles in relation to its prior rulings in Philconsa its individual Members; (b) such authority must be exercised within the prescribed procedure of law passage and,and LAMP. hence, should not be exercised after the GAA has already been passed; and (c) such authority, as embodied in the GAA, has the force of law and, hence, cannot be merely recommendatory. Justice Vitug‘s Concurring Opinion in the same case sums up the Philconsa quandary in this wise: "Neither would it be objectionable for Congress, by law,The focal point of res judicata is the judgment. The principle states that a judgment on the merits in a previous to appropriate funds for such specific projects as it may be minded; to give that authority, however, to thecase rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction would bind a subsequent case if, between the first and second individual members of Congress in whatever guise, I am afraid, would be constitutionally impermissible." As theactions, there exists an identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.151 This required identity is Court now largely benefits from hindsight and current findings on the matter, among others, the CoA Report, thenot, however, attendant hereto since Philconsa and LAMP, respectively involved constitutional challenges against Court must partially abandon its previous ruling in Philconsa insofar as it validated the post-enactmentthe 1994 CDF Article and 2004 PDAF Article, whereas the cases at bar call for a broader constitutional scrutiny of identification authority of Members of Congress on the guise that the same was merely recommendatory. Thisthe entire "Pork Barrel System." Also, the ruling in LAMP is essentially a dismissal based on a procedural postulate raises serious constitutional inconsistencies which cannot be simply excused on the ground that suchtechnicality – and, thus, hardly a judgment on the merits – in that petitioners therein failed to present any mechanism is "imaginative as it is innovative." Moreover, it must be pointed out that the recent case of Abakada"convincing proof x x x showing that, indeed, there were direct releases of funds to the Members of Congress, who Guro Party List v. Purisima155 (Abakada) has effectively overturned Philconsa‘s allowance of post-enactmentactually spend them according to their sole discretion" or "pertinent evidentiary support to demonstrate the illegal legislator participation in view of the separation of powers principle. These constitutional inconsistencies and themisuse of PDAF in the form of kickbacks and has become a common exercise of unscrupulous Members of Abakada rule will be discussed in greater detail in the ensuing section of this Decision.Congress." As such, the Court up held, in view of the presumption of constitutionality accorded to every law, the2004 PDAF Article, and saw "no need to review or reverse the standing pronouncements in the said case." Hence,for the foregoing reasons, the res judicata principle, insofar as the Philconsa and LAMP cases are concerned, cannot As for LAMP, suffice it to restate that the said case was dismissed on a procedural technicality and, hence, has notapply. set any controlling doctrine susceptible of current application to the substantive issues in these cases. In fine, stare decisis would not apply.On the other hand, the focal point of stare decisis is the doctrine created. The principle, entrenched under Article8152 of the Civil Code, evokes the general rule that, for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case II. Substantive Issues.should be doctrinally applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the partiesmay be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing A. Definition of Terms.considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event

8Before the Court proceeds to resolve the substantive issues of these cases, it must first define the terms "Pork executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and the judiciary has no power to make or execute theBarrel System," "Congressional Pork Barrel," and "Presidential Pork Barrel" as they are essential to the ensuing law."168 The principle of separation of powers and its concepts of autonomy and independence stem from thediscourse. notion that the powers of government must be divided to avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch; the division, it is hoped, would avoid any single branch from lording its power over the other branches or the citizenry.169 To achieve this purpose, the divided power must be wielded by co-equal branches of governmentPetitioners define the term "Pork Barrel System" as the "collusion between the Legislative and Executive branches that are equally capable of independent action in exercising their respective mandates. Lack of independenceof government to accumulate lump-sum public funds in their offices with unchecked discretionary powers to would result in the inability of one branch of government to check the arbitrary or self-interest assertions ofdetermine its distribution as political largesse."156 They assert that the following elements make up the Pork another or others.170Barrel System: (a) lump-sum funds are allocated through the appropriations process to an individual officer; (b)the officer is given sole and broad discretion in determining how the funds will be used or expended; (c) theguidelines on how to spend or use the funds in the appropriation are either vague, overbroad or inexistent; and Broadly speaking, there is a violation of the separation of powers principle when one branch of government unduly(d) projects funded are intended to benefit a definite constituency in a particular part of the country and to help encroaches on the domain of another. US Supreme Court decisions instruct that the principle of separation ofthe political careers of the disbursing official by yielding rich patronage benefits.157 They further state that the powers may be violated in two (2) ways: firstly, "one branch may interfere impermissibly with the other’sPork Barrel System is comprised of two (2) kinds of discretionary public funds: first, the Congressional (or performance of its constitutionally assigned function";171 and "alternatively, the doctrine may be violated whenLegislative) Pork Barrel, currently known as the PDAF;158 and, second, the Presidential (or Executive) Pork one branch assumes a function that more properly is entrusted to another."172 In other words, there is a violationBarrel, specifically, the Malampaya Funds under PD 910 and the Presidential Social Fund under PD 1869, as of the principle when there is impermissible (a) interference with and/or (b) assumption of another department‘samended by PD 1993.159 functions.

Considering petitioners‘ submission and in reference to its local concept and legal history, the Court defines the The enforcement of the national budget, as primarily contained in the GAA, is indisputably a function bothPork Barrel System as the collective body of rules and practices that govern the manner by which lump-sum, constitutionally assigned and properly entrusted to the Executive branch of government. In Guingona, Jr. v. Hon.discretionary funds, primarily intended for local projects, are utilized through the respective participations of the Carague173 (Guingona, Jr.), the Court explained that the phase of budget execution "covers the various operationalLegislative and Executive branches of government, including its members. The Pork Barrel System involves two aspects of budgeting" and accordingly includes "the evaluation of work and financial plans for individual(2) kinds of lump-sum discretionary funds: activities," the "regulation and release of funds" as well as all "other related activities" that comprise the budget execution cycle.174 This is rooted in the principle that the allocation of power in the three principal branches of government is a grant of all powers inherent in them.175 Thus, unless the Constitution provides otherwise, theFirst, there is the Congressional Pork Barrel which is herein defined as a kind of lump-sum, discretionary fund Executive department should exclusively exercise all roles and prerogatives which go into the implementation ofwherein legislators, either individually or collectively organized into committees, are able to effectively control the national budget as provided under the GAA as well as any other appropriation law.certain aspects of the fund’s utilization through various post-enactment measures and/or practices. In particular,petitioners consider the PDAF, as it appears under the 2013 GAA, as Congressional Pork Barrel since it is, interalia, a post-enactment measure that allows individual legislators to wield a collective power;160 and In view of the foregoing, the Legislative branch of government, much more any of its members, should not cross over the field of implementing the national budget since, as earlier stated, the same is properly the domain of the Executive. Again, in Guingona, Jr., the Court stated that "Congress enters the picture when it deliberates or acts onSecond, there is the Presidential Pork Barrel which is herein defined as a kind of lump-sum, discretionary fund the budget proposals of the President. Thereafter, Congress, "in the exercise of its own judgment and wisdom,which allows the President to determine the manner of its utilization. For reasons earlier stated,161 the Court formulates an appropriation act precisely following the process established by the Constitution, which specifiesshall delimit the use of such term to refer only to the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund. that no money may be paid from the Treasury except in accordance with an appropriation made by law." Upon approval and passage of the GAA, Congress‘ law -making role necessarily comes to an end and from there theWith these definitions in mind, the Court shall now proceed to discuss the substantive issues of these cases. Executive‘s role of implementing the national budget begins. So as not to blur the constitutional boundaries between them, Congress must "not concern it self with details for implementation by the Executive."176B. Substantive Issues on the Congressional Pork Barrel. The foregoing cardinal postulates were definitively enunciated in Abakada where the Court held that "from the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play1. Separation of Powers. any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional."177 It must be clarified, however, that since the restriction only pertains to "any role in thea. Statement of Principle. implementation or enforcement of the law," Congress may still exercise its oversight function which is a mechanism of checks and balances that the Constitution itself allows. But it must be made clear that Congress‘ role must be confined to mere oversight. Any post-enactment-measure allowing legislator participation beyondThe principle of separation of powers refers to the constitutional demarcation of the three fundamental powers oversight is bereft of any constitutional basis and hence, tantamount to impermissible interference and/orof government. In the celebrated words of Justice Laurel in Angara v. Electoral Commission,162 it means that the assumption of executive functions. As the Court ruled in Abakada:178"Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, thelegislative and the judicial departments of the government."163 To the legislative branch of government, throughCongress,164 belongs the power to make laws; to the executive branch of government, through the President,165 Any post-enactment congressional measure x x x should be limited to scrutiny and investigation. 1âwphi1 Inbelongs the power to enforce laws; and to the judicial branch of government, through the Court,166 belongs the particular, congressional oversight must be confined to the following:power to interpret laws. Because the three great powers have been, by constitutional design, ordained in thisrespect, "each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and issupreme within its own sphere."167 Thus, "the legislature has no authority to execute or construe the law, the

9 (1) scrutiny based primarily on Congress‘ power of appropriation and the budget hearings conducted Aside from the area of project identification, legislators have also been accorded post-enactment authority in the in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before and be heard by either of areas of fund release and realignment. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the statutory authority of legislators to its Houses on any matter pertaining to their departments and its power of confirmation; and participate in the area of fund release through congressional committees is contained in Special Provision 5 which explicitly states that "all request for release of funds shall be supported by the documents prescribed under Special Provision No. 1 and favorably endorsed by House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on (2) investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of Congress to Finance, as the case may be"; while their statutory authority to participate in the area of fund realignment is conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. contained in: first , paragraph 2, Special Provision 4189 which explicitly state s, among others, that "any realignment of funds shall be submitted to the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee onAny action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. Finance for favorable endorsement to the DBM or the implementing agency, as the case may be‖ ; and, second ,(Emphases supplied) paragraph 1, also of Special Provision 4 which authorizes the "Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Interior and Local Government, Labor and Employment, Public Works and Highways, Social Welfare and Development and Trade and Industry190 x x x to approve realignment from one project/scope to another withinb. Application. the allotment received from this Fund, subject to among others (iii) the request is with the concurrence of the legislator concerned."In these cases, petitioners submit that the Congressional Pork Barrel – among others, the 2013 PDAF Article –"wrecks the assignment of responsibilities between the political branches" as it is designed to allow individual Clearly, these post-enactment measures which govern the areas of project identification, fund release and fundlegislators to interfere "way past the time it should have ceased" or, particularly, "after the GAA is passed."179 realignment are not related to functions of congressional oversight and, hence, allow legislators to interveneThey state that the findings and recommendations in the CoA Report provide "an illustration of how absolute and and/or assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget execution. Indeed, by virtue of the foregoing,definitive the power of legislators wield over project implementation in complete violation of the constitutional legislators have been, in one form or another, authorized to participate in – as Guingona, Jr. puts it – "the variousprinciple of separation of powers."180 Further, they point out that the Court in the Philconsa case only allowed operational aspects of budgeting," including "the evaluation of work and financial plans for individual activities"the CDF to exist on the condition that individual legislators limited their role to recommending projects and not if and the "regulation and release of funds" in violation of the separation of powers principle. The fundamental rule,they actually dictate their implementation.181 as categorically articulated in Abakada, cannot be overstated – from the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in the implementation orFor their part, respondents counter that the separations of powers principle has not been violated since the enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional.191 That thePresident maintains "ultimate authority to control the execution of the GAA‖ and that he "retains the final said authority is treated as merely recommendatory in nature does not alter its unconstitutional tenor since thediscretion to reject" the legislators‘ proposals.182 They maintain that the Court, in Philconsa, "upheld the prohibition, to repeat, covers any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law. Towards this end, theconstitutionality of the power of members of Congress to propose and identify projects so long as such proposal Court must therefore abandon its ruling in Philconsa which sanctioned the conduct of legislator identification onand identification are recommendatory."183 As such, they claim that "everything in the Special Provisions [of the the guise that the same is merely recommendatory and, as such, respondents‘ reliance on the same falters2013 PDAF Article follows the Philconsa framework, and hence, remains constitutional."184 altogether.

The Court rules in favor of petitioners. Besides, it must be pointed out that respondents have nonetheless failed to substantiate their position that the identification authority of legislators is only of recommendatory import. Quite the contrary, respondents – through the statements of the Solicitor General during the Oral Arguments – have admitted that the identificationAs may be observed from its legal history, the defining feature of all forms of Congressional Pork Barrel would be of the legislator constitutes a mandatory requirement before his PDAF can be tapped as a funding source, therebythe authority of legislators to participate in the post-enactment phases of project implementation. highlighting the indispensability of the said act to the entire budget execution process:192

At its core, legislators – may it be through project lists,185 prior consultations186 or program menus187 – have Justice Bernabe: Now, without the individual legislator’s identification of the project, can the PDAF of the legislatorbeen consistently accorded post-enactment authority to identify the projects they desire to be funded through be utilized?various Congressional Pork Barrel allocations. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the statutory authority of legislatorsto identify projects post-GAA may be construed from the import of Special Provisions 1 to 3 as well as the secondparagraph of Special Provision 4. To elucidate, Special Provision 1 embodies the program menu feature which, as Solicitor General Jardeleza: No, Your Honor.evinced from past PDAF Articles, allows individual legislators to identify PDAF projects for as long as the identifiedproject falls under a general program listed in the said menu. Relatedly, Special Provision 2 provides that the Justice Bernabe: It cannot?implementing agencies shall, within 90 days from the GAA is passed, submit to Congress a more detailed prioritylist, standard or design prepared and submitted by implementing agencies from which the legislator may makehis choice. The same provision further authorizes legislators to identify PDAF projects outside his district for as Solicitor General Jardeleza: It cannot… (interrupted)long as the representative of the district concerned concurs in writing. Meanwhile, Special Provision 3 clarifiesthat PDAF projects refer to "projects to be identified by legislators"188 and thereunder provides the allocation Justice Bernabe: So meaning you should have the identification of the project by the individual legislator?limit for the total amount of projects identified by each legislator. Finally, paragraph 2 of Special Provision 4requires that any modification and revision of the project identification "shall be submitted to the HouseCommittee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance for favorable endorsement to the DBM or the Solicitor General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor.implementing agency, as the case may be." From the foregoing special provisions, it cannot be seriously doubtedthat legislators have been accorded post-enactment authority to identify PDAF projects. xxxx

10Justice Bernabe: In short, the act of identification is mandatory? As an adjunct to the separation of powers principle,194 legislative power shall be exclusively exercised by the body to which the Constitution has conferred the same. In particular, Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states that such power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and aSolictor General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor. In the sense that if it is not done and then there is no identification. House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.195 Based on this provision, it is clear that only Congress, acting as a bicameral body, and the people,xxxx through the process of initiative and referendum, may constitutionally wield legislative power and no other. This premise embodies the principle of non-delegability of legislative power, and the only recognized exceptions thereto would be: (a) delegated legislative power to local governments which, by immemorial practice, areJustice Bernabe: Now, would you know of specific instances when a project was implemented without the allowed to legislate on purely local matters;196 and (b) constitutionally-grafted exceptions such as the authorityidentification by the individual legislator? of the President to, by law, exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy in times of war or other national emergency,197 or fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations andSolicitor General Jardeleza: I do not know, Your Honor; I do not think so but I have no specific examples. I would restrictions as Congress may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and otherdoubt very much, Your Honor, because to implement, there is a need for a SARO and the NCA. And the SARO and duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government.198the NCA are triggered by an identification from the legislator. Notably, the principle of non-delegability should not be confused as a restriction to delegate rule-making authorityxxxx to implementing agencies for the limited purpose of either filling up the details of the law for its enforcement (supplementary rule-making) or ascertaining facts to bring the law into actual operation (contingent rule- making).199 The conceptual treatment and limitations of delegated rule-making were explained in the case ofSolictor General Jardeleza: What we mean by mandatory, Your Honor, is we were replying to a question, "How can People v. Maceren200 as follows:a legislator make sure that he is able to get PDAF Funds?" It is mandatory in the sense that he must identify, in thatsense, Your Honor. Otherwise, if he does not identify, he cannot avail of the PDAF Funds and his district would notbe able to have PDAF Funds, only in that sense, Your Honor. (Emphases supplied) The grant of the rule-making power to administrative agencies is a relaxation of the principle of separation of powers and is an exception to the nondelegation of legislative powers. Administrative regulations or "subordinate legislation" calculated to promote the public interest are necessary because of "the growing complexity of modernThus, for all the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby declares the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other provisions life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administeringof law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of post-enactment authority in the implementation or the law."enforcement of the budget, unrelated to congressional oversight, as violative of the separation of powers principleand thus unconstitutional. Corollary thereto, informal practices, through which legislators have effectivelyintruded into the proper phases of budget execution, must be deemed as acts of grave abuse of discretion xxxxamounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and, hence, accorded the same unconstitutional treatment. That suchinformal practices do exist and have, in fact, been constantly observed throughout the years has not been Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating thesubstantially disputed here. As pointed out by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice Sereno) mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amendingduring the Oral Arguments of these cases:193 or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. Rules that subvert theChief Justice Sereno: statute cannot be sanctioned. (Emphases supplied)

Now, from the responses of the representative of both, the DBM and two (2) Houses of Congress, if we enforces b. Application.the initial thought that I have, after I had seen the extent of this research made by my staff, that neither theExecutive nor Congress frontally faced the question of constitutional compatibility of how they were engineeringthe budget process. In fact, the words you have been using, as the three lawyers of the DBM, and both Houses of In the cases at bar, the Court observes that the 2013 PDAF Article, insofar as it confers post-enactmentCongress has also been using is surprise; surprised that all of these things are now surfacing. In fact, I thought that identification authority to individual legislators, violates the principle of non-delegability since said legislators arewhat the 2013 PDAF provisions did was to codify in one section all the past practice that had been done since effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation, which – as settled in Philconsa – is lodged1991. In a certain sense, we should be thankful that they are all now in the PDAF Special Provisions. x x x (Emphasis in Congress.201 That the power to appropriate must be exercised only through legislation is clear from Sectionand underscoring supplied) 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which states that: "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law." To understand what constitutes an act of appropriation, the Court, in Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice and Insular Auditor202 (Bengzon), held that the power of appropriation involvesUltimately, legislators cannot exercise powers which they do not have, whether through formal measures written (a) the setting apart by law of a certain sum from the public revenue for (b) a specified purpose. Essentially, underinto the law or informal practices institutionalized in government agencies, else the Executive department be the 2013 PDAF Article, individual legislators are given a personal lump-sum fund from which they are able todeprived of what the Constitution has vested as its own. dictate (a) how much from such fund would go to (b) a specific project or beneficiary that they themselves also determine. As these two (2) acts comprise the exercise of the power of appropriation as described in Bengzon,2. Non-delegability of Legislative Power. and given that the 2013 PDAF Article authorizes individual legislators to perform the same, undoubtedly, said legislators have been conferred the power to legislate which the Constitution does not, however, allow. Thus, keeping with the principle of non-delegability of legislative power, the Court hereby declares the 2013 PDAFa. Statement of Principle. Article, as well as all other forms of Congressional Pork Barrel which contain the similar legislative identification feature as herein discussed, as unconstitutional.

113. Checks and Balances. influence a majority of that body"; phrased differently, it is meant to "increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or design."209a. Statement of Principle; Item-Veto Power. For the President to exercise his item-veto power, it necessarily follows that there exists a proper "item" which may be the object of the veto. An item, as defined in the field of appropriations, pertains to "the particulars, theThe fact that the three great powers of government are intended to be kept separate and distinct does not mean details, the distinct and severable parts of the appropriation or of the bill." In the case of Bengzon v. Secretary ofthat they are absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has also provided for an Justice of the Philippine Islands,210 the US Supreme Court characterized an item of appropriation as follows:elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of thegovernment.203 An item of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which, in itself, is a specific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law which happens to be put into an appropriation bill. (Emphases supplied)A prime example of a constitutional check and balance would be the President’s power to veto an item writteninto an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill submitted to him by Congress for approval through a process knownas "bill presentment." The President‘s item-veto power is found in Section 27(2), Article VI of the 1987 On this premise, it may be concluded that an appropriation bill, to ensure that the President may be able to exerciseConstitution which reads as follows: his power of item veto, must contain "specific appropriations of money" and not only "general provisions" which provide for parameters of appropriation.Sec. 27. x x x. Further, it is significant to point out that an item of appropriation must be an item characterized by singular correspondence – meaning an allocation of a specified singular amount for a specified singular purpose, otherwisexxxx known as a "line-item."211 This treatment not only allows the item to be consistent with its definition as a "specific appropriation of money" but also ensures that the President may discernibly veto the same. Based on the foregoing(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff formulation, the existing Calamity Fund, Contingent Fund and the Intelligence Fund, being appropriations whichbill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object. state a specified amount for a specific purpose, would then be considered as "line- item" appropriations which are rightfully subject to item veto. Likewise, it must be observed that an appropriation may be validly apportioned into component percentages or values; however, it is crucial that each percentage or value must be allocated forThe presentment of appropriation, revenue or tariff bills to the President, wherein he may exercise his power of its own corresponding purpose for such component to be considered as a proper line-item. Moreover, as Justiceitem-veto, forms part of the "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedures" for law-passage as Carpio correctly pointed out, a valid appropriation may even have several related purposes that are by accountingspecified under the Constitution.204 As stated in Abakada, the final step in the law-making process is the and budgeting practice considered as one purpose, e.g., MOOE (maintenance and other operating expenses), in"submission of the bill to the President for approval. Once approved, it takes effect as law after the required which case the related purposes shall be deemed sufficiently specific for the exercise of the President‘s item vetopublication."205 power. Finally, special purpose funds and discretionary funds would equally square with the constitutional mechanism of item-veto for as long as they follow the rule on singular correspondence as herein discussed. AnentElaborating on the President‘s item-veto power and its relevance as a check on the legislature, the Court, in special purpose funds, it must be added that Section 25(4), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution requires that theBengzon, explained that:206 "special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or t o be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein." Meanwhile, with respect to discretionary funds, Section 2 5(6), Article VI of the 1987 ConstitutionThe former Organic Act and the present Constitution of the Philippines make the Chief Executive an integral part requires that said funds "shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers andof the law-making power. His disapproval of a bill, commonly known as a veto, is essentially a legislative act. The subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law."questions presented to the mind of the Chief Executive are precisely the same as those the legislature mustdetermine in passing a bill, except that his will be a broader point of view. In contrast, what beckons constitutional infirmity are appropriations which merely provide for a singular lump- sum amount to be tapped as a source of funding for multiple purposes. Since such appropriation type necessitatesThe Constitution is a limitation upon the power of the legislative department of the government, but in this respect the further determination of both the actual amount to be expended and the actual purpose of the appropriationit is a grant of power to the executive department. The Legislature has the affirmative power to enact laws; the which must still be chosen from the multiple purposes stated in the law, it cannot be said that the appropriationChief Executive has the negative power by the constitutional exercise of which he may defeat the will of the law already indicates a "specific appropriation of money‖ and hence, without a proper line-item which theLegislature. It follows that the Chief Executive must find his authority in the Constitution. But in exercising that President may veto. As a practical result, the President would then be faced with the predicament of either vetoingauthority he may not be confined to rules of strict construction or hampered by the unwise interference of the the entire appropriation if he finds some of its purposes wasteful or undesirable, or approving the entirejudiciary. The courts will indulge every intendment in favor of the constitutionality of a veto in the same manner appropriation so as not to hinder some of its legitimate purposes. Finally, it may not be amiss to state that suchas they will presume the constitutionality of an act as originally passed by the Legislature. (Emphases supplied) arrangement also raises non-delegability issues considering that the implementing authority would still have to determine, again, both the actual amount to be expended and the actual purpose of the appropriation. Since theThe justification for the President‘s item-veto power rests on a variety of policy goals such as to prevent log-rolling foregoing determinations constitute the integral aspects of the power to appropriate, the implementing authoritylegislation,207 impose fiscal restrictions on the legislature, as well as to fortify the executive branch‘s role in the would, in effect, be exercising legislative prerogatives in violation of the principle of non-delegability.budgetary process.208 In Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, the US Supreme Court characterizedthe President‘s item-power as "a salutary check upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the community b. Application.against the effects of factions, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to

12In these cases, petitioners claim that "in the current x x x system where the PDAF is a lump-sum appropriation, passing of the yearly budget" which turns them "from fiscalizers" into "financially-interested partners."219 Theythe legislator‘s identification of the projects after the passage of the GAA denies the President the chance to veto also claim that the system has an effect on re- election as "the PDAF excels in self-perpetuation of elective officials."that item later on."212 Accordingly, they submit that the "item veto power of the President mandates that Finally, they add that the "PDAF impairs the power of impeachment" as such "funds are indeed quite useful, ‘toappropriations bills adopt line-item budgeting" and that "Congress cannot choose a mode of budgeting which well, accelerate the decisions of senators.‘"220effectively renders the constitutionally-given power of the President useless."213 The Court agrees in part.On the other hand, respondents maintain that the text of the Constitution envisions a process which is intended tomeet the demands of a modernizing economy and, as such, lump-sum appropriations are essential to financially The aphorism forged under Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which states that "public office is a publicaddress situations which are barely foreseen when a GAA is enacted. They argue that the decision of the Congress trust," is an overarching reminder that every instrumentality of government should exercise their official functionsto create some lump-sum appropriations is constitutionally allowed and textually-grounded.214 only in accordance with the principles of the Constitution which embodies the parameters of the people‘s trust. The notion of a public trust connotes accountability,221 hence, the various mechanisms in the Constitution whichThe Court agrees with petitioners. are designed to exact accountability from public officers.

Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of P24.79 Billion only appears as a collective allocation limit since the Among others, an accountability mechanism with which the proper expenditure of public funds may be checkedsaid amount would be further divided among individual legislators who would then receive personal lump-sum is the power of congressional oversight. As mentioned in Abakada,222 congressional oversight may be performedallocations and could, after the GAA is passed, effectively appropriate PDAF funds based on their own discretion. either through: (a) scrutiny based primarily on Congress‘ power of appropriation and the budget hearingsAs these intermediate appropriations are made by legislators only after the GAA is passed and hence, outside of conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before and be heard by either ofthe law, it necessarily means that the actual items of PDAF appropriation would not have been written into the its Houses on any matter pertaining to their departments and its power of confirmation;223 or (b) investigationGeneral Appropriations Bill and thus effectuated without veto consideration. This kind of lump-sum/post- and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid ofenactment legislative identification budgeting system fosters the creation of a budget within a budget" which legislation.224subverts the prescribed procedure of presentment and consequently impairs the President‘s power of item veto.As petitioners aptly point out, the above-described system forces the President to decide between (a) accepting The Court agrees with petitioners that certain features embedded in some forms of Congressional Pork Barrel,the entire P24.79 Billion PDAF allocation without knowing the specific projects of the legislators, which may or among others the 2013 PDAF Article, has an effect on congressional oversight. The fact that individual legislatorsmay not be consistent with his national agenda and (b) rejecting the whole PDAF to the detriment of all other are given post-enactment roles in the implementation of the budget makes it difficult for them to becomelegislators with legitimate projects.215 disinterested "observers" when scrutinizing, investigating or monitoring the implementation of the appropriation law. To a certain extent, the conduct of oversight would be tainted as said legislators, who are vested with post-Moreover, even without its post-enactment legislative identification feature, the 2013 PDAF Article would remain enactment authority, would, in effect, be checking on activities in which they themselves participate. Also, it mustconstitutionally flawed since it would then operate as a prohibited form of lump-sum appropriation above- be pointed out that this very same concept of post-enactment authorization runs afoul of Section 14, Article VI ofcharacterized. In particular, the lump-sum amount of P24.79 Billion would be treated as a mere funding source the 1987 Constitution which provides that:allotted for multiple purposes of spending, i.e., scholarships, medical missions, assistance to indigents,preservation of historical materials, construction of roads, flood control, etc. This setup connotes that the Sec. 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any courtappropriation law leaves the actual amounts and purposes of the appropriation for further determination and, of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he,therefore, does not readily indicate a discernible item which may be subject to the President‘s power of item veto. directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned orIn fact, on the accountability side, the same lump-sum budgeting scheme has, as the CoA Chairperson relays, controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any"limited state auditors from obtaining relevant data and information that would aid in more stringently auditing office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.the utilization of said Funds."216 Accordingly, she recommends the adoption of a "line by line budget or amount (Emphasis supplied)per proposed program, activity or project, and per implementing agency."217 Clearly, allowing legislators to intervene in the various phases of project implementation – a matter before anotherHence, in view of the reasons above-stated, the Court finds the 2013 PDAF Article, as well as all Congressional office of government – renders them susceptible to taking undue advantage of their own office.Pork Barrel Laws of similar operation, to be unconstitutional. That such budgeting system provides for a greaterdegree of flexibility to account for future contingencies cannot be an excuse to defeat what the Constitution The Court, however, cannot completely agree that the same post-enactment authority and/or the individualrequires. Clearly, the first and essential truth of the matter is that unconstitutional means do not justify even legislator‘s control of his PDAF per se would allow him to perpetuate himself in office. Indeed, while thecommendable ends.218 Congressional Pork Barrel and a legislator‘s use thereof may be linked to this area of interest, the use of his PDAF for re-election purposes is a matter which must be analyzed based on particular facts and on a case-to-case basis.c. Accountability. Finally, while the Court accounts for the possibility that the close operational proximity between legislators andPetitioners further relate that the system under which various forms of Congressional Pork Barrel operate defies the Executive department, through the former‘s post-enactment participation, may affect the process ofpublic accountability as it renders Congress incapable of checking itself or its Members. In particular, they point impeachment, this matter largely borders on the domain of politics and does not strictly concern the Pork Barrelout that the Congressional Pork Barrel "gives each legislator a direct, financial interest in the smooth, speedy System‘s intrinsic constitutionality. As such, it is an improper subject of judicial assessment.

13In sum, insofar as its post-enactment features dilute congressional oversight and violate Section 14, Article VI of development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of nationalthe 1987 Constitution, thus impairing public accountability, the 2013 PDAF Article and other forms of goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structureCongressional Pork Barrel of similar nature are deemed as unconstitutional. instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the National Government to the local government units.4. Political Dynasties.

xxxxOne of the petitioners submits that the Pork Barrel System enables politicians who are members of politicaldynasties to accumulate funds to perpetuate themselves in power, in contravention of Section 26, Article II of the1987 Constitution225 which states that: (c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultations with appropriate local government units, nongovernmental and people‘s organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions.Sec. 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties (Emphases and underscoring supplied)as may be defined by law. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The above-quoted provisions of the Constitution and the LGC reveal the policy of the State to empower localAt the outset, suffice it to state that the foregoing provision is considered as not self-executing due to the qualifying government units (LGUs) to develop and ultimately, become self-sustaining and effective contributors to thephrase "as may be defined by law." In this respect, said provision does not, by and of itself, provide a judicially national economy. As explained by the Court in Philippine Gamefowl Commission v. Intermediate Appellateenforceable constitutional right but merely specifies guideline for legislative or executive action.226 Therefore, Court:228since there appears to be no standing law which crystallizes the policy on political dynasties for enforcement, theCourt must defer from ruling on this issue. This is as good an occasion as any to stress the commitment of the Constitution to the policy of local autonomy which is intended to provide the needed impetus and encouragement to the development of our local politicalIn any event, the Court finds the above-stated argument on this score to be largely speculative since it has not been subdivisions as "self - reliant communities." In the words of Jefferson, "Municipal corporations are the smallproperly demonstrated how the Pork Barrel System would be able to propagate political dynasties. republics from which the great one derives its strength." The vitalization of local governments will enable their inhabitants to fully exploit their resources and more important, imbue them with a deepened sense of involvement5. Local Autonomy. in public affairs as members of the body politic. This objective could be blunted by undue interference by the national government in purely local affairs which are best resolved by the officials and inhabitants of such political units. The decision we reach today conforms not only to the letter of the pertinent laws but also to the spirit of theThe State‘s policy on local autonomy is principally stated in Section 25, Article II and Sections 2 and 3, Article X of Constitution.229 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)the 1987 Constitution which read as follows:

In the cases at bar, petitioners contend that the Congressional Pork Barrel goes against the constitutionalARTICLE II principles on local autonomy since it allows district representatives, who are national officers, to substitute their judgments in utilizing public funds for local development.230 The Court agrees with petitioners.Sec. 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. Philconsa described the 1994 CDF as an attempt "to make equal the unequal" and that "it is also a recognition thatARTICLE X individual members of Congress, far more than the President and their congressional colleagues, are likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective constituents and the priority to be given each project."231 Drawing strength from this pronouncement, previous legislators justified its existence by stating that "theSec. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy. relatively small projects implemented under the Congressional Pork Barrel complement and link the national development goals to the countryside and grassroots as well as to depressed areas which are overlooked bySec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and central agencies which are preoccupied with mega-projects.232 Similarly, in his August 23, 2013 speech on theaccountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms "abolition" of PDAF and budgetary reforms, President Aquino mentioned that the Congressional Pork Barrel wasof recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, originally established for a worthy goal, which is to enable the representatives to identify projects for communitiesresponsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, that the LGU concerned cannot afford.233salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization andoperation of the local units. Notwithstanding these declarations, the Court, however, finds an inherent defect in the system which actually belies the avowed intention of "making equal the unequal." In particular, the Court observes that the gauge ofPursuant thereto, Congress enacted RA 7160,227 otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991" PDAF and CDF allocation/division is based solely on the fact of office, without taking into account the specific(LGC), wherein the policy on local autonomy had been more specifically explicated as follows: interests and peculiarities of the district the legislator represents. In this regard, the allocation/division limits are clearly not based on genuine parameters of equality, wherein economic or geographic indicators have been taken into consideration. As a result, a district representative of a highly-urbanized metropolis gets the same amount ofSec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political funding as a district representative of a far-flung rural province which would be relatively "underdeveloped"subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest compared to the former. To add, what rouses graver scrutiny is that even Senators and Party-List Representatives

14– and in some years, even the Vice-President – who do not represent any locality, receive funding from the authorization or appropriation by Congress shall be made, except that it be ‘made by law,‘" an appropriation lawCongressional Pork Barrel as well. These certainly are anathema to the Congressional Pork Barrel‘s original intent may – according to Philconsa – be "detailed and as broad as Congress wants it to be" for as long as the intent towhich is "to make equal the unequal." Ultimately, the PDAF and CDF had become personal funds under the effective appropriate may be gleaned from the same. As held in the case of Guingona, Jr.:241control of each legislator and given unto them on the sole account of their office. There is no provision in our Constitution that provides or prescribes any particular form of words or religiousThe Court also observes that this concept of legislator control underlying the CDF and PDAF conflicts with the recitals in which an authorization or appropriation by Congress shall be made, except that it be "made by law,"functions of the various Local Development Councils (LDCs) which are already legally mandated to "assist the such as precisely the authorization or appropriation under the questioned presidential decrees. In other words,corresponding sanggunian in setting the direction of economic and social development, and coordinating in terms of time horizons, an appropriation may be made impliedly (as by past but subsisting legislations) as welldevelopment efforts within its territorial jurisdiction."234 Considering that LDCs are instrumentalities whose as expressly for the current fiscal year (as by enactment of laws by the present Congress), just as saidfunctions are essentially geared towards managing local affairs,235 their programs, policies and resolutions appropriation may be made in general as well as in specific terms. The Congressional authorization may beshould not be overridden nor duplicated by individual legislators, who are national officers that have no law- embodied in annual laws, such as a general appropriations act or in special provisions of laws of general or specialmaking authority except only when acting as a body. The undermining effect on local autonomy caused by the application which appropriate public funds for specific public purposes, such as the questioned decrees. Anpost-enactment authority conferred to the latter was succinctly put by petitioners in the following wise:236 appropriation measure is sufficient if the legislative intention clearly and certainly appears from the language employed (In re Continuing Appropriations, 32 P. 272), whether in the past or in the present. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)With PDAF, a Congressman can simply bypass the local development council and initiate projects on his own, andeven take sole credit for its execution. Indeed, this type of personality-driven project identification has not onlycontributed little to the overall development of the district, but has even contributed to "further weakening Likewise, as ruled by the US Supreme Court in State of Nevada v. La Grave:242infrastructure planning and coordination efforts of the government." To constitute an appropriation there must be money placed in a fund applicable to the designated purpose. TheThus, insofar as individual legislators are authorized to intervene in purely local matters and thereby subvert word appropriate means to allot, assign, set apart or apply to a particular use or purpose. An appropriation in thegenuine local autonomy, the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other similar forms of Congressional Pork Barrel is sense of the constitution means the setting apart a portion of the public funds for a public purpose. No particulardeemed unconstitutional. form of words is necessary for the purpose, if the intention to appropriate is plainly manifested. (Emphases supplied)With this final issue on the Congressional Pork Barrel resolved, the Court now turns to the substantive issuesinvolving the Presidential Pork Barrel. Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court cannot sustain the argument that the appropriation must be the "primary and specific" purpose of the law in order for a valid appropriation law to exist. To reiterate, if a legal provision designates a determinate or determinable amount of money and allocates the same for a particular public purpose,C. Substantive Issues on the Presidential Pork Barrel. then the legislative intent to appropriate becomes apparent and, hence, already sufficient to satisfy the requirement of an "appropriation made by law" under contemplation of the Constitution.1. Validity of Appropriation. Section 8 of PD 910 pertinently provides:Petitioners preliminarily assail Section 8 of PD 910 and Section 12 of PD1869 (now, amended by PD 1993), whichrespectively provide for the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund, as invalid appropriations laws Section 8. Appropriations. x x xsince they do not have the "primary and specific" purpose of authorizing the release of public funds from theNational Treasury. Petitioners submit that Section 8 of PD 910 is not an appropriation law since the "primary andspecific‖ purpose of PD 910 is the creation of an Energy Development Board and Section 8 thereof only created a All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board from any and all sources including receipts from service contracts andSpecial Fund incidental thereto.237 In similar regard, petitioners argue that Section 12 of PD 1869 is neither a agreements such as application and processing fees, signature bonus, discovery bonus, production bonus; allvalid appropriations law since the allocation of the Presidential Social Fund is merely incidental to the "primary money collected from concessionaires, representing unspent work obligations, fines and penalties under theand specific" purpose of PD 1869 which is the amendment of the Franchise and Powers of PAGCOR.238 In view of Petroleum Act of 1949; as well as the government share representing royalties, rentals, production share onthe foregoing, petitioners suppose that such funds are being used without any valid law allowing for their proper service contracts and similar payments on the exploration, development and exploitation of energy resources,appropriation in violation of Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which states that: "No money shall shall form part of a Special Fund to be used to finance energy resource development and exploitation programsbe paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."239 and projects of the government and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President. (Emphases supplied)The Court disagrees. Whereas Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, reads:"An appropriation made by law‖ under the contemplation of Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitutionexists when a provision of law (a) sets apart a determinate or determinable240 amount of money and (b) allocates Sec. 12. Special Condition of Franchise. — After deducting five (5%) percent as Franchise Tax, the Fifty (50%)the same for a particular public purpose. These two minimum designations of amount and purpose stem from the percent share of the Government in the aggregate gross earnings of the Corporation from this Franchise, or 60%very definition of the word "appropriation," which means "to allot, assign, set apart or apply to a particular use or if the aggregate gross earnings be less than P150,000,000.00 shall be set aside and shall accrue to the Generalpurpose," and hence, if written into the law, demonstrate that the legislative intent to appropriate exists. As the Fund to finance the priority infrastructure development projects and to finance the restoration of damaged orConstitution "does not provide or prescribe any particular form of words or religious recitals in which an

15destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the power insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient standard to adequately determine the limits of the President‘sPhilippines. (Emphases supplied) authority with respect to the purpose for which the Malampaya Funds may be used. As it reads, the said phrase gives the President wide latitude to use the Malampaya Funds for any other purpose he may direct and, in effect, allows him to unilaterally appropriate public funds beyond the purview of the law. That the subject phrase mayAnalyzing the legal text vis-à-vis the above-mentioned principles, it may then be concluded that (a) Section 8 of be confined only to "energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government"PD 910, which creates a Special Fund comprised of "all fees, revenues, and receipts of the Energy Development under the principle of ejusdem generis, meaning that the general word or phrase is to be construed to include – orBoard from any and all sources" (a determinable amount) "to be used to finance energy resource development be restricted to – things akin to, resembling, or of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned,249 isand exploitation programs and projects of the government and for such other purposes as may be hereafter belied by three (3) reasons: first, the phrase "energy resource development and exploitation programs anddirected by the President" (a specified public purpose), and (b) Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, projects of the government" states a singular and general class and hence, cannot be treated as a statutorywhich similarly sets aside, "after deducting five (5%) percent as Franchise Tax, the Fifty (50%) percent share of reference of specific things from which the general phrase "for such other purposes" may be limited; second, thethe Government in the aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR, or 60%, if the aggregate gross earnings be less than said phrase also exhausts the class it represents, namely energy development programs of the government;250P150,000,000.00" (also a determinable amount) "to finance the priority infrastructure development projects and and, third, the Executive department has, in fact, used the Malampaya Funds for non-energy related purposesx x x the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and authorized by the under the subject phrase, thereby contradicting respondents‘ own position that it is limited only to "energyOffice of the President of the Philippines" (also a specified public purpose), are legal appropriations under Section resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government."251 Thus, while Section 8 of29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. PD 910 may have passed the completeness test since the policy of energy development is clearly deducible from its text, the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" under the sameIn this relation, it is apropos to note that the 2013 PDAF Article cannot be properly deemed as a legal appropriation provision of law should nonetheless be stricken down as unconstitutional as it lies independently unfettered byunder the said constitutional provision precisely because, as earlier stated, it contains post-enactment measures any sufficient standard of the delegating law. This notwithstanding, it must be underscored that the rest of Sectionwhich effectively create a system of intermediate appropriations. These intermediate appropriations are the 8, insofar as it allows for the use of the Malampaya Funds "to finance energy resource development andactual appropriations meant for enforcement and since they are made by individual legislators after the GAA is exploitation programs and projects of the government," remains legally effective and subsisting. Truth be told, thepassed, they occur outside the law. As such, the Court observes that the real appropriation made under the 2013 declared unconstitutionality of the aforementioned phrase is but an assurance that the Malampaya Funds wouldPDAF Article is not the P24.79 Billion allocated for the entire PDAF, but rather the post-enactment determinations be used – as it should be used – only in accordance with the avowed purpose and intention of PD 910.made by the individual legislators which are, to repeat, occurrences outside of the law. Irrefragably, the 2013 PDAFArticle does not constitute an "appropriation made by law" since it, in its truest sense, only authorizes individual As for the Presidential Social Fund, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Section 12 of PD 1869 has alreadylegislators to appropriate in violation of the non-delegability principle as afore-discussed. been amended by PD 1993 which thus moots the parties‘ submissions on the same.252 Nevertheless, since the amendatory provision may be readily examined under the current parameters of discussion, the Court proceeds2. Undue Delegation. to resolve its constitutionality.

On a related matter, petitioners contend that Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative Primarily, Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, indicates that the Presidential Social Fund may be usedpower since the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" gives the "to first, finance the priority infrastructure development projects and second, to finance the restoration ofPresident "unbridled discretion to determine for what purpose the funds will be used."243 Respondents, on the damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and authorized by the Office of the Presidentother hand, urged the Court to apply the principle of ejusdem generis to the same section and thus, construe the of the Philippines." The Court finds that while the second indicated purpose adequately curtails the authority ofphrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" to refer only to other purposes the President to spend the Presidential Social Fund only for restoration purposes which arise from calamities, therelated "to energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government."244 first indicated purpose, however, gives him carte blanche authority to use the same fund for any infrastructure project he may so determine as a "priority". Verily, the law does not supply a definition of "priority in frastructure development projects" and hence, leaves the President without any guideline to construe the same. To note, theThe Court agrees with petitioners‘ submissions. delimitation of a project as one of "infrastructure" is too broad of a classification since the said term could pertain to any kind of facility. This may be deduced from its lexicographic definition as follows: "the underlying frameworkWhile the designation of a determinate or determinable amount for a particular public purpose is sufficient for a of a system, especially public services and facilities (such as highways, schools, bridges, sewers, and water-legal appropriation to exist, the appropriation law must contain adequate legislative guidelines if the same law systems) needed to support commerce as well as economic and residential development."253 In fine, the phrasedelegates rule-making authority to the Executive245 either for the purpose of (a) filling up the details of the law "to finance the priority infrastructure development projects" must be stricken down as unconstitutional since –for its enforcement, known as supplementary rule-making, or (b) ascertaining facts to bring the law into actual similar to the above-assailed provision under Section 8 of PD 910 – it lies independently unfettered by anyoperation, referred to as contingent rule-making.246 There are two (2) fundamental tests to ensure that the sufficient standard of the delegating law. As they are severable, all other provisions of Section 12 of PD 1869, aslegislative guidelines for delegated rule-making are indeed adequate. The first test is called the "completeness amended by PD 1993, remains legally effective and subsisting.test." Case law states that a law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, orimplemented by the delegate. On the other hand, the second test is called the "sufficient standard test." D. Ancillary Prayers. 1.Jurisprudence holds that a law lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitationsin the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate‘s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.247To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegate‘s authority, announce the legislative policy, Petitioners’ Prayer to be Furnished Lists and Detailed Reports.and identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.248 Aside from seeking the Court to declare the Pork Barrel System unconstitutional – as the Court did so in the contextIn view of the foregoing, the Court agrees with petitioners that the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be of its pronouncements made in this Decision – petitioners equally pray that the Executive Secretary and/or thehereafter directed by the President" under Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative DBM be ordered to release to the CoA and to the public: (a) "the complete schedule/list of legislators who have 16availed of their PDAF and VILP from the years 2003 to 2013, specifying the use of the funds, the project or activity It must be stressed that it is essential for a writ of mandamus to issue that the applicant has a well-defined, clearand the recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto" (PDAF Use Schedule/List);254 and (b) and certain legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of defendant to perform the act"the use of the Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary funds, including the proceeds from the x x x Malampaya Funds required. The corresponding duty of the respondent to perform the required act must be clear and specific Lemiand remittances from the PAGCOR x x x from 2003 to 2013, specifying the x x x project or activity and the recipient v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-20768, November 29,1968,126 SCRA 203; Ocampo v. Subido, G.R. No. L-28344, August 27,entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto"255 (Presidential Pork Use Report). Petitioners‘ prayer is 1976, 72 SCRA 443.grounded on Section 28, Article II and Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which read as follows: The request of the petitioners fails to meet this standard, there being no duty on the part of respondent to prepareARTICLE II the list requested. (Emphases supplied)

Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public In these cases, aside from the fact that none of the petitions are in the nature of mandamus actions, the Court findsdisclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. that petitioners have failed to establish a "a well-defined, clear and certain legal right" to be furnished by the Executive Secretary and/or the DBM of their requested PDAF Use Schedule/List and Presidential Pork Use Report. Neither did petitioners assert any law or administrative issuance which would form the bases of the latter‘s dutyARTICLE III Sec. 7. to furnish them with the documents requested. While petitioners pray that said information be equally released to the CoA, it must be pointed out that the CoA has not been impleaded as a party to these cases nor has it filed anyThe right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, petition before the Court to be allowed access to or to compel the release of any official document relevant to theand to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government conduct of its audit investigations. While the Court recognizes that the information requested is a matter ofresearch data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may significant public concern, however, if only to ensure that the parameters of disclosure are properly foisted andbe provided by law. so as not to unduly hamper the equally important interests of the government, it is constrained to deny petitioners‘ prayer on this score, without prejudice to a proper mandamus case which they, or even the CoA, may choose to pursue through a separate petition.The Court denies petitioners‘ submission.

It bears clarification that the Court‘s denial herein should only cover petitioners‘ plea to be furnished with suchCase law instructs that the proper remedy to invoke the right to information is to file a petition for mandamus. As schedule/list and report and not in any way deny them, or the general public, access to official documents whichexplained in the case of Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission:256 are already existing and of public record. Subject to reasonable regulation and absent any valid statutory prohibition, access to these documents should not be proscribed. Thus, in Valmonte, while the Court denied theWhile the manner of examining public records may be subject to reasonable regulation by the government agency application for mandamus towards the preparation of the list requested by petitioners therein, it nonethelessin custody thereof, the duty to disclose the information of public concern, and to afford access to public records allowed access to the documents sought for by the latter, subject, however, to the custodian‘s reasonablecannot be discretionary on the part of said agencies. Certainly, its performance cannot be made contingent upon regulations,viz.:259the discretion of such agencies. Otherwise, the enjoyment of the constitutional right may be rendered nugatory byany whimsical exercise of agency discretion. The constitutional duty, not being discretionary, its performance may In fine, petitioners are entitled to access to the documents evidencing loans granted by the GSIS, subject tobe compelled by a writ of mandamus in a proper case. reasonable regulations that the latter may promulgate relating to the manner and hours of examination, to the end that damage to or loss of the records may be avoided, that undue interference with the duties of the custodian ofBut what is a proper case for Mandamus to issue? In the case before Us, the public right to be enforced and the the records may be prevented and that the right of other persons entitled to inspect the records may be insuredconcomitant duty of the State are unequivocably set forth in the Constitution. Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, supra at p. 538, quoting Subido v. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 387. The petition, as to the second and third alternative acts sought to be done by petitioners, is meritorious.The decisive question on the propriety of the issuance of the writ of mandamus in this case is, whether theinformation sought by the petitioner is within the ambit of the constitutional guarantee. (Emphases supplied) However, the same cannot be said with regard to the first act sought by petitioners, i.e.,

Corollarily, in the case of Valmonte v. Belmonte Jr.257 (Valmonte), it has been clarified that the right to "to furnish petitioners the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-information does not include the right to compel the preparation of "lists, abstracts, summaries and the like." In Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately before the February 7 election thru thethe same case, it was stressed that it is essential that the "applicant has a well -defined, clear and certain legal right intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos."to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of defendant to perform the act required." Hence, withoutthe foregoing substantiations, the Court cannot grant a particular request for information. The pertinent portions The Court, therefore, applies the same treatment here.of Valmonte are hereunder quoted:258

2. Petitioners’ Prayer to Include Matters in Congressional Deliberations.

Although citizens are afforded the right to information and, pursuant thereto, are entitled to "access to officialrecords," the Constitution does not accord them a right to compel custodians of official records to prepare lists,abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information on matters of public concern. Petitioners further seek that the Court "order the inclusion in budgetary deliberations with the Congress of all presently, off-budget, lump sum, discretionary funds including but not limited to, proceeds from the x x x Malampaya Fund, remittances from the PAGCOR and the PCSO or the Executive‘s Social Funds."260

17Suffice it to state that the above-stated relief sought by petitioners covers a matter which is generally left to the Based on this definition, it may be gleaned that a SARO only evinces the existence of an obligation and not theprerogative of the political branches of government. Hence, lest the Court itself overreach, it must equally deny directive to pay. Practically speaking, the SARO does not have the direct and immediate effect of placing publictheir prayer on this score. funds beyond the control of the disbursing authority. In fact, a SARO may even be withdrawn under certain circumstances which will prevent the actual release of funds. On the other hand, the actual release of funds is brought about by the issuance of the NCA,264 which is subsequent to the issuance of a SARO. As may be3. Respondents’ Prayer to Lift TRO; Consequential Effects of Decision. determined from the statements of the DBM representative during the Oral Arguments:265

The final issue to be resolved stems from the interpretation accorded by the DBM to the concept of released funds. Justice Bernabe: Is the notice of allocation issued simultaneously with the SARO?In response to the Court‘s September 10, 2013 TRO that enjoined the release of the remaining PDAF allocated forthe year 2013, the DBM issued Circular Letter No. 2013-8 dated September 27, 2013 (DBM Circular 2013-8) whichpertinently reads as follows: xxxx

3.0 Nonetheless, PDAF projects funded under the FY 2013 GAA, where a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) Atty. Ruiz: It comes after. The SARO, Your Honor, is only the go signal for the agencies to obligate or to enter intohas been issued by the DBM and such SARO has been obligated by the implementing agencies prior to the issuance commitments. The NCA, Your Honor, is already the go signal to the treasury for us to be able to pay or to liquidateof the TRO, may continually be implemented and disbursements thereto effected by the agencies concerned. the amounts obligated in the SARO; so it comes after. x x x The NCA, Your Honor, is the go signal for the MDS for the authorized government-disbursing banks to, therefore, pay the payees depending on the projects or projects covered by the SARO and the NCA.Based on the text of the foregoing, the DBM authorized the continued implementation and disbursement of PDAFfunds as long as they are: first, covered by a SARO; and, second, that said SARO had been obligated by theimplementing agency concerned prior to the issuance of the Court‘s September 10, 2013 TRO. Justice Bernabe: Are there instances that SAROs are cancelled or revoked?

Petitioners take issue with the foregoing circular, arguing that "the issuance of the SARO does not yet involve the Atty. Ruiz: Your Honor, I would like to instead submit that there are instances that the SAROs issued are withdrawnrelease of funds under the PDAF, as release is only triggered by the issuance of a Notice of Cash Allocation by the DBM.[(NCA)]."261 As such, PDAF disbursements, even if covered by an obligated SARO, should remain enjoined. Justice Bernabe: They are withdrawn?For their part, respondents espouse that the subject TRO only covers "unreleased and unobligated allotments."They explain that once a SARO has been issued and obligated by the implementing agency concerned, the PDAF Atty. Ruiz: Yes, Your Honor x x x. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)funds covered by the same are already "beyond the reach of the TRO because they cannot be considered as‘remaining PDAF.‘" They conclude that this is a reasonable interpretation of the TRO by the DBM.262 Thus, unless an NCA has been issued, public funds should not be treated as funds which have been "released." In this respect, therefore, the disbursement of 2013 PDAF funds which are only covered by obligated SAROs, andThe Court agrees with petitioners in part. without any corresponding NCAs issued, must, at the time of this Decision’s promulgation, be enjoined and consequently reverted to the unappropriated surplus of the general fund. Verily, in view of the declaredAt the outset, it must be observed that the issue of whether or not the Court‘s September 10, 2013 TRO should be unconstitutionality of the 2013 PDAF Article, the funds appropriated pursuant thereto cannot be disbursed evenlifted is a matter rendered moot by the present Decision. The unconstitutionality of the 2013 PDAF Article as though already obligated, else the Court sanctions the dealing of funds coming from an unconstitutional source.declared herein has the consequential effect of converting the temporary injunction into a permanent one. Hence,from the promulgation of this Decision, the release of the remaining PDAF funds for 2013, among others, is now This same pronouncement must be equally applied to (a) the Malampaya Funds which have been obligated butpermanently enjoined. not released – meaning, those merely covered by a SARO – under the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" pursuant to Section 8 of PD 910; and (b) funds sourced from theThe propriety of the DBM‘s interpretation of the concept of "release" must, nevertheless, be resolved as it has a Presidential Social Fund under the phrase "to finance the priority infrastructure development projects" pursuantpractical impact on the execution of the current Decision. In particular, the Court must resolve the issue of whether to Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, which were altogether declared by the Court asor not PDAF funds covered by obligated SAROs, at the time this Decision is promulgated, may still be disbursed unconstitutional. However, these funds should not be reverted to the general fund as afore-stated but instead,following the DBM‘s interpretation in DBM Circular 2013-8. respectively remain under the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund to be utilized for their corresponding special purposes not otherwise declared as unconstitutional.On this score, the Court agrees with petitioners‘ posturing for the fundamental reason that funds covered by anobligated SARO are yet to be "released" under legal contemplation. A SARO, as defined by the DBM itself in its E. Consequential Effects of Decision.website, is "aspecific authority issued to identified agencies to incur obligations not exceeding a given amountduring a specified period for the purpose indicated. It shall cover expenditures the release of which is subject to As a final point, it must be stressed that the Court‘s pronouncement anent the unconstitutionality of (a) the 2013compliance with specific laws or regulations, or is subject to separate approval or clearance by competent PDAF Article and its Special Provisions, (b) all other Congressional Pork Barrel provisions similar thereto, and (c)authority."263 the phrases (1) "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" under Section 8 of PD 910, and (2) "to finance the priority infrastructure development projects" under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, must only be treated as prospective in effect in view of the operative fact doctrine.

18To explain, the operative fact doctrine exhorts the recognition that until the judiciary, in an appropriate case, which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine; (d) all informal practices of similardeclares the invalidity of a certain legislative or executive act, such act is presumed constitutional and thus, import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack orentitled to obedience and respect and should be properly enforced and complied with. As explained in the recent excess of jurisdiction; and (e) the phrases (1) "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by thecase of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation,266 the doctrine merely "reflects President" under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910 and (2) "to finance the priority infrastructureawareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmental organ which has the final say on whether or development projects" under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No.not a legislative or executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power 1993, for both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislativeof judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness power.and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication."267 "In the languageof an American Supreme Court decision: ‘The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination of Accordingly, the Court‘s temporary injunction dated September 10, 2013 is hereby declared to be PERMANENT.unconstitutionality, is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored.‘"268 Thus, the disbursement/release of the remaining PDAF funds allocated for the year 2013, as well as for all previous years, and the funds sourced from (1) the Malampaya Funds under the phrase "and for such other purposes asFor these reasons, this Decision should be heretofore applied prospectively. may be hereafter directed by the President" pursuant to Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910, and (2) the Presidential Social Fund under the phrase "to finance the priority infrastructure development projects" pursuant to Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993, which are, at the timeConclusion this Decision is promulgated, not covered by Notice of Cash Allocations (NCAs) but only by Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs), whether obligated or not, are hereby ENJOINED. The remaining PDAF funds covered byThe Court renders this Decision to rectify an error which has persisted in the chronicles of our history. In the final this permanent injunction shall not be disbursed/released but instead reverted to the unappropriated surplus ofanalysis, the Court must strike down the Pork Barrel System as unconstitutional in view of the inherent defects in the general fund, while the funds under the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund shall remainthe rules within which it operates. To recount, insofar as it has allowed legislators to wield, in varying gradations, therein to be utilized for their respective special purposes not otherwise declared as unconstitutional.non-oversight, post-enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution, the system has violated the principleof separation of powers; insofar as it has conferred unto legislators the power of appropriation by giving them On the other hand, due to improper recourse and lack of proper substantiation, the Court hereby DENIESpersonal, discretionary funds from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine, petitioners‘ prayer seeking that the Executive Secretary and/or the Department of Budget and Management beit has similarly violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power ; insofar as it has created a system of ordered to provide the public and the Commission on Audit complete lists/schedules or detailed reports relatedbudgeting wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed procedure to the availments and utilization of the funds subject of these cases. Petitioners‘ access to official documentsof presentment and, in the process, denied the President the power to veto items ; insofar as it has diluted the already available and of public record which are related to these funds must, however, not be prohibited buteffectiveness of congressional oversight by giving legislators a stake in the affairs of budget execution, an aspect merely subjected to the custodian‘s reasonable regulations or any valid statutory prohibition on the same. Thisof governance which they may be called to monitor and scrutinize, the system has equally impaired public denial is without prejudice to a proper mandamus case which they or the Commission on Audit may choose toaccountability ; insofar as it has authorized legislators, who are national officers, to intervene in affairs of purely pursue through a separate petition.local nature, despite the existence of capable local institutions, it has likewise subverted genuine local autonomy ;and again, insofar as it has conferred to the President the power to appropriate funds intended by law for energy-related purposes only to other purposes he may deem fit as well as other public funds under the broad The Court also DENIES petitioners prayer to order the inclusion of the funds subject of these cases in the budgetaryclassification of "priority infrastructure development projects," it has once more transgressed the principle of non- deliberations of Congress as the same is a matter left to the prerogative of the political branches of government.delegability. Finally, the Court hereby DIRECTS all prosecutorial organs of the government to, within the bounds of reasonableFor as long as this nation adheres to the rule of law, any of the multifarious unconstitutional methods and dispatch, investigate and accordingly prosecute all government officials and/or private individuals for possiblemechanisms the Court has herein pointed out should never again be adopted in any system of governance, by any criminal offenses related to the irregular, improper and/or unlawful disbursement/utilization of all funds undername or form, by any semblance or similarity, by any influence or effect. Disconcerting as it is to think that a system the Pork Barrel System.so constitutionally unsound has monumentally endured, the Court urges the people and its co-stewards ingovernment to look forward with the optimism of change and the awareness of the past. At a time of great civic This Decision is immediately executory but prospective in effect.unrest and vociferous public debate, the Court fervently hopes that its Decision today, while it may not purge allthe wrongs of society nor bring back what has been lost, guides this nation to the path forged by the Constitutionso that no one may heretofore detract from its cause nor stray from its course. After all, this is the Court‘s bounden SO ORDERED.duty and no other‘s. ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABEWHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. In view of the constitutional violations discussed in this Associate JusticeDecision, the Court hereby declares as UNCONSTITUTIONAL: (a) the entire 2013 PDAF Article; (b) all legalprovisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articles andthe various Congressional Insertions, which authorize/d legislators – whether individually or collectivelyorganized into committees – to intervene, assume or participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of thebudget execution, such as but not limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of projectidentification, fund release and/or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight; (c) alllegal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articlesand the various Congressional Insertions, which confer/red personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from 19